"A Lieberman defeat will send exactly the wrong message to thoughtful Democratic pols."

So says Gatemouth, in an echo of that brave iconoclast and original thinker, Cokie Roberts. On Sunday's This Week she said a Lamont victory would be "disastrous for the Democratic party" because it would "give the party to the liberals and the blogosphere" (c'mon, Cokes, wankers call it the "netroots" now -- "blogosphere" is so 2005), and sputtered something about how it was no accident that the only two-term Democratic president was Bill Clinton (or maybe George Will said that, I can't remember since it was such a monotonic chorus of conventional wisdom).

I don't exactly understand what she and others mean, since they only refer to the inevitable "chaos" (to use Cokie's word) that would ensue, without really explaining their logic. Is it that it would make the Dems unelectable? You mean unlike the past 6 years?

Personally, I'm concerned for anyone in Kos's immediate vicinity Tuesday night, because his ego-volcano is about to explode. Bigtime, as Cheney would say. But aside from that, what's the big deal?

This will strengthen a Gore presidential run. It's already made Hillz tack to the left on the war. In terms of pure process, it rewards the grassroots over the special interests. What's the downside? That for the first time in 15 years people are going to start talking about universal health care without snickering? Heaven help us.